百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[Constitutional Interpretation]
郭国汀律师专栏
·郭国汀:论爱情
·錯帐俏曳傅模珨凳旰笥H自糾錯我還不偉大嗎?!
·文革教训原因考
·开放党禁与多党联合政治——回顾三大改造、三面红旗、反右、文革史有感
·论质、量互变关系
·学习与开放
·无产阶级领袖有感
·无产阶级领袖的重大作用
·勇敢地参政议政吧!中国律师们!
·郭国汀:从 “中国律师人”说开去
·中國律師朋友們幸福不會從天降
·律師的文學功底
·郭國汀:中國涉外案件沒有一起獲得執行
·南郭:堂堂正正做個真正的中國人!
·郭国汀:愿王洪民先生在天之灵安息.
·南郭:令郭國汀律師老淚縱橫的真情
·郭国汀:民族败类!你是否中国人?
·郭國汀:令我熱淚橫流的小詩
·郭国汀:专制流氓暴政本质的再暴露
·郭國汀:強烈譴責中共惡意迫害自由戰士楊天水 許萬平
·今天我絕食——英雄多多益善!
·一个中国人权律师的真实故事
·郭国汀:全球接力绝食抗暴运动的伟大意义
·郭国汀:闻律师英雄高智晟再遇车祸有感
·只有思想言论信仰结社出版新闻舆论的真正自由能够救中国!
· 南郭:自由万岁!新年好!
·志当存高远-我的理想与追求
·我的知识结构与思想
·人生 道德 灵魂/南郭
·男子汉的眼泪/郭国汀
·相信生命—郭國汀律師印象
·南郭点评
·Racism is the biggest enemy of Justice and equality
·The Essence Distinguish Between Marx and Lenin on the Dictatorship of
·Race Politic as the Enemy of Justice and Equality
·The Great Leap Famine: Natural Disaster or Political disaster or Murde
·Homosexuality: a legal or moral problem?
·1958-1962年中国历史上最具毁灭性的大灾难
·马恩列无产阶级专政研究手稿/郭国汀
·郭国汀:穷大律师与亿万富翁
·政治体制改革的实质与根本要件/郭国汀編译手稿
·台湾自由宪政民主之路/郭国汀编译
·Terrorism and state terrorism studying
·The Truth of Chinese Economic development studying by Thomas Guoting G
·Comparing Analysis of Marx and Lenin’s Theory on the Dictatorship of
·China overtake the USA becoming an economic superpower??? by Thomas G
·人性论:人性本恶或人性本善? 郭国汀
·《诗经》英译(精选)/郭国汀編译
·Running build up a sound man
·An top important massage sent by the Holy Spirit
·My special experience help me build up my faith to the God
·I saw five ghosts when I was eighteen
·My adventure in this wonderful world
·My cross road as the first Chinese human rights lawyers who has lost h
·Does Xi in nature(evil) is same as Hu?
·Art, painting, and Civilization by Thomas G Guo
·A great teacher on our time ?
·What kind of characteristic I have ?
·郭国汀律师业绩简介
·Guo's fighting for freedom and Justice will certify that "Freedom is n
·What Human rights lawyer Thomas G Guo had done and why he received suc
·中共在抗战期通日敌打国军卖国史实考证/郭国汀
·I always tears stopless without crying, am I still a genuine man???
·My sixty year struggle for freedom and justice
·My appreciation to all professors in the Uvic and friends in the world
·Is Thomas Guoting Guo really a great teacher on our time ?
·My sixty years struggle for freedom and justice II
·孙文和蒋介石与苏俄党国体制的原则性区别
·Probably the Last idealist of Chinese lawyer?
·What looks like Mr. Thomas G Guo in my eyes
·a virtues, righteous, wisdom, and courage,and distinguished lawyer
·郭国汀律师:法轮圣徒瞿延来为何令南郭敬重?
·专访郭国汀律师(下) :回首不言悔
·郭国汀律师:何谓真正的中国人权律师?
·My sixty years struggle for freedom and justice III
·思想、言论、出版、舆论、新闻的真正自由
·民族败类!你是否中国人?
·思想言论自由的理由
·思想言论出版新闻自由的价值
·律师的文学功底
·最高法院的院长们为何对郭国汀极为反感?
·反了你! 竟敢不尊敬我大法官!
·Critical analysis on the Chinese Communist Party’s Regime by Thomas
·马克思研究手稿/郭国汀
·大师大哲论勇气 /郭国汀译
·任何欲与郭律师公开辩论者敬请公示真名实姓
·天才的古代中国/郭国汀編译手稿
·The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution studying by Thomas Guoting G
·关于内因与外因关系的争论
·Canadian Indigenous people’s right of self-determination and sovereig
·世界思想大哲论暴政----反抗专制暴政是天赋人权
·My forty years struggle for freedom and justice IV
·Human rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang
·A holy man or a moral man?
·He is a genuine hero and the hope of China!
·The first Chinese human rights lawyer was killed by the CCP regime
·you are not only a upright man, but also a heroic brave fighter!
·I will never give up my life duty and mission!
·Injustice as the root of terrorism: Social political and economic fact
·Why we much anti-communist party of China regime?
·My Forty years struggle for Freedom and Justice V
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Constitutional Interpretation

Constitutional Topic: Constitutional Interpretation
   The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns the various interpretations of the Constitution that have evolved over time.
   
   The Constitution is many things to many people. Undoubtedly, it is the frame work for the Government of the United States of America, defining the three branches and clearing delineating the powers of the branches. It also undoubtedly grants certain power to the federal government and grants others to the states; and it undoubtedly guarantees the basic rights of the people.

   The Constitution is short; it cannot and does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Even when it seems it is clear, there can be conflicting rights, conflicting spheres of power. When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution. The concept of constitutional interpretation is foreign in some countries, where the constitution makes a reasonable effort to cover every eventuality. These constitutions are generally rigid and little changing, adapting slowly to advances in political views, popular opinion, technology, and changes in government. The U.S. Constitution, however, has been termed a Living Constitution, in part because it grows and adapts to internal and external pressures, changing from one era and generation to the next.
   When a new situation arises, or even a new variation on an old situation, the Constitution is often looked to for guidance. It is at this point that the various interpretations of the Constitution come into play.
   There is no one right way to interpret the Constitution, and people often do not always stick to one interpretation. Below, then, are the major divisions in interpretation; your own personal beliefs may fall into several of these categories.
   Note: the major sources for material for this section were "Constitutional Law: Cases and Commentary" by Daniel Hall, and "On Reading the Constitution" by Lawrence Tribe and Michael Dorf.
   
   Originalism, or, Original Intent
   Originalists think that the best way to interpret the Constitution is to determine how the Framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted. They look to several sources to determine this intent, including the contemporary writings of the framers, newspaper articles, the Federalist Papers, and the notes from the Constitutional Convention itself.
   Originalists consider the original intent to be the most pure way of interpreting the Constitution; the opinions of the Framers were, for the most part, well documented. If there is an unclear turn of phrase in the Constitution, who better to explain it than those who wrote it?
   Opponents of originalism note several points. First, the Constitution may have been the product of the Framers, but it was ratified by hundreds of delegates in 13 state conventions - should not the opinions of these people hold even more weight? Also, the Framers were a diverse group, and many had issues with specific parts of the Constitution. Whose opinion should be used? Next, do the opinions of a small, homogeneous group from 200 years ago have the respect of the huge, diverse population of today? To a black woman, how much trust can be placed in the thoughts of a white slave owner who's been dead for generations?
   In truth, as with all of the following interpretations, most people use originalism when it suits them. Finding a quote from a framer to support a modern position can be a powerful way to advance your point of view.
   
   Modernism/Instrumentalism
   Those who most oppose the Originalist approach often consider themselves to be modernists, or instrumentalists. A modernist approach to Constitutional interpretation looks at the Constitution as if it were ratified today. What meaning would it have today, if written today. How does modern life affect the words of the Constitution? The main argument against originalism is that the Constitution becomes stale and irrelevant to modern life if only viewed through 18th century eyes. Additionally, we have more than 200 years of history and legal precedent to look back on, and that we are modern individuals, with as much difficulty in reasonably thinking like 18th century men as those 18th century men would have had trouble thinking like us.
   Modernists also contend that the Constitution is deliberately vague in many areas, expressly to permit modern interpretations to override older ones as the Constitution ages. It is this interpretation that best embodies the Living Constitution concept: the Constitution is flexible and dynamic, changing slowly over time as the morals and beliefs of the population shift. Modernists do not reject originalism - they recognize that there is value in a historical perspective; but the contemporary needs of society outweigh an adherence to a potentially dangerously outdated angle of attack.
   Originalists feel that modernism does a disservice to the Constitution, that the people who wrote it had a pure and valid vision for the nation, and that their vision should be able to sustain us through any Constitutional question.
   
   Literalism - historical
   Historical literalists believe that the contemporary writings of the Framers are not relevant to any interpretation of the Constitution. The only thing one needs to interpret the Constitution is a literal reading of the words contained therein, with an expert knowledge in the 18th century meaning of those words. The debates leading to the final draft are not relevant, the Federalist Papers are not relevant - only the words.
   The historical literalist takes a similar look at the Constitution as an originalist does, but the literalist has no interest in expanding beyond the text for answers to questions. For example, an historical literalist will see the militia of the 2nd Amendment as referring to all able-bodied men from 17 to 45, just as in the late 18th century, and this interpretation will color that person's reading of the 2nd Amendment.
   
   Literalism - contemporary
   Very similar to an historical literalist, a contemporary literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for guidance, but this literalist has no interest in the historical meaning of the words. The contemporary literalist looks to modern dictionaries to determine the meaning of the words of the Constitution, ignoring precedent and legal dissertation, and relying solely on the definition of the words.
   Just as the historical literalist view parallels the originalist view, but much more narrow in focus, so too does the contemporary literalist mirror the modernist; and again, the main difference is the literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for meaning. To expand on the 2nd Amendment example, the contemporary literalist will view the militia as the modern National Guard, and this will color that person's views on the 2nd.
   
   Democratic/normative reinforcement
   Finally, the democratic interpretation is the last approach to interpretation. Democratic interpretation is also known as normative or representation reinforcement. Democratic proponents advocate that the Constitution is not designed to be a set of specific principles and guidelines, but that it was designed to be a general principle, a basic skeleton on which contemporary vision would build upon. Decisions as to the meaning of the Constitution must look at the general feeling evoked by the Constitution, then use modern realism to pad out the skeleton.
   As evidence, democrats point out that many phrases, such as "due process" and "equal protection" are deliberately vague, that the phrases are not defined in context. The guidance for interpretation must come from that basic framework that the Framers provided, but that to fill in the gaps, modern society's current morals and feelings must be taken into consideration. Changes in the Constitution that stem from this kind of philosophy will end up with principles of the population at large, while ensuring that the framers still have a say in the underlying decision or ruling. This interpretation is seen to enhance democratic ideals and the notion of republicanism.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场